gosioux76

Members
  • Content Count

    3,995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

gosioux76 last won the day on July 21

gosioux76 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,691 All Star

About gosioux76

  • Rank
    blah

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Louis

Recent Profile Visitors

7,113 profile views
  1. I wasn't speaking at all about sports conferences. The post I quoted made note of teams that "almost were" champions. So they changed uniforms then came just short of a title. It was a play on words. I referred to them being in the "almost were division" of teams that changed uniforms ahead of a major achievement.
  2. But here's the thing: Do you think owners would change uniforms so often if doing so didn't actually succeed in generating new business? Owners don't look at uniforms the way we do. There's nothing sacred in the name of commerce. The second Tom Brady retires and the Buccaneers return to their status as a moribund franchise, owners will once again tinker with the uniform as a way to drum up excitement for the brand. (I could be wrong, and maybe the Bucs will join the likes of the Raiders, Packers, Bears, Canadiens and Yankees in the ranks of the mostly untouchables. But I doubt it.) It's true that, especially lately, fan reaction may have some influence on these decisions. The return to BiG for the Brewers and brown to the Padres, plus the return to classic looks for the Bucs and Browns, could be considered evidence of that. But I'd be hesitant to assume these looks are here to stay. The Rams' new unis, which is heavily influenced by current fashion trends, seem as if they were released with a short shelf life.
  3. I was referring to the "almost was" category that @mmajeski06 referenced in the prior post. I didn't mean the actual AFC division. I should've been more clear.
  4. Competing in the same division, Tennessee lost in the final seconds of the Super Bowl in its first year as the Titans.
  5. Someone mentioned it earlier, but the fact that the yellow stripes on the shoulders carry a passing resemblance to St. Louis' Gateway Arch is hilarious to me. I can't NOT see it.
  6. What is that lightning/star logo on the neckline? I've never seen that before. I kinda love it.
  7. The Twins won the 1987 World Series in their first year in the "M" caps and pinstripes. I remember wondering to myself as a kid whether the uniform change made a difference. Uni-Watch touched on this back in 2011.
  8. Fixed that first line for you. You're spot on, though. It's hard to think that a design this simplified can still be over-designed, but it is. I've said it before, that in the afterglow of the LA Rams reveal, my dislike for these has tempered somewhat. But these are still a huge missed opportunity. More than anything, I'm left with a feeling of genuine disappointment. The Falcons have such a fantastic uniform history on which to draw that it's frustrating to see them take this path. I think I'm learning this about myself: When it comes to football uniforms, I much prefer modernizations of classic designs that adapt to today's fabric choices and uniform cuts, while allowing small touches of design innovation. The Vikings uniforms are a great example of this. It's also a big reason why I love what the Chargers have done, but was also underwhelmed by the Browns and Buccaneers. They each look much better by adopting previous designs, but they also lack ambition.
  9. So they're just one of those magic eye posters, essentially.
  10. This is interesting. Found this story from 2011 on the Wild's website about how the organization selected the name and logos. I think we're all familiar with how Wild was among six finalist names submitted by fans: Freeze, Northern Lights, Blue Ox, White Bears, Voyageurs and Wild. In the passage below, Matt Majka -- now the team's president -- outlines what came next, including the initial introduction of a wordmark followed by a logo design process. I've highlighted a few passages I think offer some insight to what we've been discussing.
  11. Not sure these are the greatest examples. There's really nothing vague about "Stars." There's absolutely zero chance of misunderstanding what a star is, and the branding is clearly reflective of its name. The "Wild" could be anything, but because the organization hasn't clearly defined its brand, we're left with something with either no discernible meaning or multiple ones.
  12. I'd argue that these are essentially the same thing.
  13. I'm not sure you want leeway when developing a brand. I think certainty is a far more valuable. You either know who you are or you don't.
  14. This is really interesting. I never really thought about it much over the years, but you could argue that the Minnesota Wild organization hasn't adequately defined the word "Wild" for itself. I agree with your description of the primary logo as a serene setting inside a bear silhouette. That implies "Wild" as an abbreviation of "wilderness." But the original team wordmark -- with its scraggly typography -- seems to evoke "Wild" as an adjective for unrestrained or violent. They've shifted away from this in recent years, of course, but the term "Wild" is still not clearly defined.